> Michael Lorrey wrote:>> > I know what it is. Light travels slower in denser matter. i.e. it travels slower> > in air than in a vacuum, and slower in an optic fiber than in air. It is also> > affected by gravity as well, which is why its slower when travelling through dense> > matter, but this is described in SR/GR.>> Nope, that's not it. In QED, photons can travel faster or slower than> 'c' in a full vacuum. In the ballistic theory, the photons are emitted> and absorbed by the electrons of the transparent medium at 'c' relative> to the atoms in the medium.

> The 'gravitational slowing' you discuss is explained by the ballistic theory of> light in the ordinary classical-mechanical way. SR/GR have to assert that> dimensionality is affected by gravity, so that the photons are still travelling at> 'c' but (somehow) space and time are altered so this means they don't get very far.> I have never seen a good explanation of this -- alleged -- process.

Easy. Since a solid substance has its atoms tightly packed, the gravity field exerted by
each indvidual atom is very high at a very short distance from the nucleus. As gravity
field density will change c relative to an observer outside that local field density,
and the gravity field density inside matter is higher than that outside matter, photons
traveling through solid, or liquid matter, will be observed to slow down while
traveling inside the matter, then resuming the normal c when outside that matter, while
if you were the photon, you would notice no difference between the two....

> >> We start with a uniform cubic space, say one metre along each edge.> >> On the north side is a blue LED pointing south, and alongside it, a> >> photoelectric cell likewise aimed southwards.> >>> >> On the south side we have a red LED pointed north, and a northwardly> >> aimed photoelectric cell.> >>> >> Our apparatus is rigged so that the red and the blue LEDs fire> >> simuultaneusly. The photoelectric cells record the time of flight> >> of the red and the blue photons.> >>> >> Armed with this kit, we can do a timeslice-by-timeslice analysis of> >> the positions of the photons within the cube. We can show> >> _conclusively_ that -- for the photons to start where and when they> >> do, and end up when and where they do, the red photons MUST travel> >> at 2c relative to the blue photons.>> > No, this is not true. They travel at the same speed, with different wavelengths.>> You completely miss the point. The only reason to have red and> blue photons is to colour-differentiate them for ease of> explanation. Northbound blue passes southbound blue at 2c.> Northbound red passes southbound red at 2c. The situational> logic is unbreakable.

Understanding relativity shows that, relative to each other, northbound blue and
southbound blue are temporally coexistent. Since they are both traveling at c, the
northbound photon, as an observer, experiences no time passage, only a single instant,
expending energy k in the instant of emission from point a and absorption at point b. To
an observer that is not traveling at absolute c, each photon is traveling at c, relative
to the non-c observer. Depending on the speed and direction of the observer relative to
the two photons, the wavelengths of each will be compressed, extended, or unchanged.

> > I'd like to see citations of mathematical treatments of black hole> > theory that precedes SR/GR by 100 years. Lessee, that means they should> > be published before 1805.>> Black Holes are implicit in Newtonian gravitation with a ballistic> ('corpuscular') theory of light. If the velocity of emission of> light-particles is less than the escape velocity of the emitting> body, the light-particle cannot escape the gravitational field and> will eventually fall back.

If this were so, then black holes would not be black, but would shine like any other
star, as the quantum virtual photons traveling above c that escaped would be redshifted
into the visible spectrum by the slowing of the photons escape velocity. Since black
holes are in fact black, outside of event horizon impact and zero field splitting
radiation, then your theory is wrong.

Using ballistic theory for rough calculations does in fact work, just as Newton's Laws
work for most all macroscopic phonomena as rough approximations. However, getting down
to the nitty gritty fine results takes much more, especially when dealing with angstrom
distances.

>>>> > Solid state electronics cannot be described by> > classical mechanics, because so much of electronic theory depends on> > tunneling.>> Funny, then, that we can model matter so accurately with classical> mechanics (Car-Parrinello Method) that we can _calculate_ (say) the> melting-point of silicon. You have to get your head around the fact> that the same physical phenomena can be explained by indefinitely many> different theories, as Leibnitz showed. The photo-electric effect> preceded Einstein & Lenard's [1905]. Why do you think it's impossible> to come up with an auxilliary theory (even an ad hoc theory...) to> enable us to calculate tunnelling using classical mechanics? All QM> is, is a statistically-based approximation method.

Explain via ballistic theory how an electron can jump across a PN gate without quantum
tunneling, all ballistic theory can do is calculate it as a current, and assumes
constant flow. It cannot explain the tunnelling.

> > Likewise, lasers cannot function purely by classical mechanics.>> Absolutely, they can (leaving aside the loose language). The> mechanics of electron orbits, and of absorption and emission of> light-particles (photons) are all in my RM paper. You simply don't> understand how far-reaching and powerful Classical Mechanics is as a> system. What is it about lasers you think we can't explain?

They cannot explain how a mere alternating electrostatic field can cause photon
emission. By classical mechanics, an electroluminescent lamp is action at a distance,
and should be impossible.

> > nuclear fission cannot be described by classical mechanics.>> Of course it can -- go look up 'packing fractions.' All energy is> kinetic or potential. Bound particles have potential energy. Orbiting> particles have kinetic energy.

And here you are wrong. Any element at or above iron absorbs more energy in fusion,
while any element below iron in the periodic table absorbs more energy in fission.
Classical mechanics cannot explain this.

>>> > the quantum tunneling microscope cannot function by classical mechanics.>> Again, you're missing the point. The effect is not dependent on the> theory. And I asked for six examples relating to SR/GR, by the way,> not QM.

OK, how about this, atomic clocks traveling at different speeds need to be recalibrated
every so often, due to relativistic effects that cannot be explained by classical
mechanics..

>>> > Ok, thats six, now where is my money?>> Not-OK! Not six! No cigar. See above.>> Tony> PS: Sen. Pam Roach ('R', Auburn, WA) cited precisely your concealed-carry> point, BTW). This still does not endear her to me.

I CC:'d everyone you sent that message to with my comments. Funny, the Seattle DA on
your list just dumped it and didn't even read it.

--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?